hah, the irony of it all
accepting different opinions when opinions are close to reality/backed up by facts is one thing, another thing when someone is just way off track .....

Blah blah blah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Didn't Emmo whip Gonzales in Florida?

He was 8 years younger, is it so strange that he could beat him sometimes?
Gonzales won 12 matches against Emerson in the Open Era, including the biggest one. Isn't that enough?

Quote:

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

72 tournaments, the majority of which were amateur tournaments with depleted fields, while Gimeno had to front constantly peak-Laver and peak-Rosewall in its circuit, often beating them on clay.
Gimeno was able to reach a semifinal at Wimbledon Open even if he was 33 years old at the time, Santana was one year younger but he never reached a semifinal at Wim. Open.
Gimeno also won the French 1972 and reached the semifinal in 1968. Santana never reached the semifinal at the French Open.
Anyway, Santana won Barcelona 1970, which was the best clay tournament that season, but that's not enough to put him above Gimeno in my opinion.

I'll not answer anymore on Gimeno, that's my opinion (not only mine, I think also BobbyOne considers him better than Santana and Emerson), the world is big enough for both our points of view. Bye bye.

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

Quote:

Stravinsky probably did not say "it's a boogie-woogie" because that term was not known at all in Beethoven's time.

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

Quote:

I stay at this: A genius can leap the centuries (you partly agree).

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

Quote:

I believe you that you can play Beethoven sonatas (I never could do so) but the most important thing in music is to OPEN YOUR SOUL as treblings has done.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

Quote:

I rate Haydn as the Roy Emerson of music: both are very famous but vastly overrated...

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

In our debate about the demands of the amateur game you acknowledged Tilden's longevity and pointed out that he, too, spent a lot of time in the amateur game. I'm not certain what your inference is there, but we do know that the amateur game in Tilden's time included all the world's best players. Tilden joined the pro tours later, but if we're asking why he could play possibly his best tennis at the advanced age of 31, we're talking about 1924, when all (or perhaps nearly all) of the world's best players were amateurs.

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

Quote:

If Tilden was dominant at a late age that would have more to do with his being a late bloomer, his time spent in military service, etc.

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

Quote:

Everything was different, then, in any case. Players did not cross the oceans as much as in Laver's time, and when they did they spent entire weeks on ships, without playing tennis. How does that impact longevity?

Tilden also subsisted mostly on steak and potatoes, and smoked heavily. Very different from Laver. So what does that do to the comparison? It just complicates it more.

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

Quote:

If you mean that the junior game is less demanding than the "senior" game, you're absolutely correct. But I was not making any arguments about the junior game taking a physical or mental toll on an athlete. I was talking about development. Someone who trains every day as a junior and plays often in competition will develop faster, and reach his peak earlier, than someone who plays much less as a junior.

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

Quote:

I disagree, I think the question of playing style has to come into this somehow. Think of Ken Rosewall. The general feeling is that his efficient classical style had everything to do with his great longevity. He was almost never injured -- and that will certainly save the body.

You mentioned Borg, Nadal, Sampras and Federer each having an 8-year span of winning at least one major. But Rosewall started winning majors in '53 and won his last one in '72: a period of 19 years. Even cutting out his amateur majors, he's way ahead of the other champions we mentioned.

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

Quote:

So then we ask about Laver. Why did he win majors as late as 31? Well I don't know exactly, but in a comparison of the playing styles of champions, I think it makes more sense to group him among his peers who played a similar classic style, than it does to group him with the four champions we mentioned from the Open Era. He was no grinder like Borg and Nadal, that's for sure. But he also did less grinding than Federer, who is after all a baseliner. And Pete played an awful lot of baseline tennis, certainly not enough to call him a baseliner, but perhaps more than Laver did.

Pete played more SV tennis as he got older, partly in the realization that the older he got the less he was going to win from the baseline. It's something you hear a lot: grinding is for the youngest legs.

And if that's true -- that net play saves the body as it ages and can extend the prime years of a player -- then how can we ignore that in Laver's time SV was a far more common style than in the Open Era?

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

Didn't Emmo whip Gonzales in Florida?
And was Gimeno still part of the discussion?
Remember, Santana in the sixties was a much hotter product than Gimeno, but the pros could not afford to sign Santana or Emerson, who made more money as amateurs than Laver or Rosewall did as pros!

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

There´s been enormous discussions in Spain about Gimeno being better than Santana or the other way round.it is more a political fight than anything else.

IMO, Santana was a greater champion and Gimeno a more complete player.Had they played DC together, they are the only team in the 60´s able to pull up a fight against the unbeatable aussie squad.And maybe Spain would not have waited till the XXI century to win the cup.

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

Didn't Emmo whip Gonzales in Florida?
And was Gimeno still part of the discussion?
Remember, Santana in the sixties was a much hotter product than Gimeno, but the pros could not afford to sign Santana or Emerson, who made more money as amateurs than Laver or Rosewall did as pros!

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

Expert Dan,

Santana won more tournaments because he stayed amateur (the weaker field) while Gimeno had the courage to face the best players in the world (Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver). It's easier to win tournaments and majors against the likes of Emerson, Stolle and Pietrangeli than against Laver and Rosewall.

It's a shame, Dan, that I and other posters must explain you (again and again) the tennis history's basics.

Long time long talk. Just to repeat I don't think there's much disagreement between me and krosero, but it's about whether the pro/amateur split is the biggest factor in Laver's seemingly late dominance in 1969. I think it is while krosero doesn't. In Tilden's case it's probably his time away from the game, which we saw manifest itself as recently as this past decade in Agassi.

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

NonP, Your statement that it's thus the more reason Beethoven did not invent Jazz because that name was not known in Beethoven's time, is beyond my understanding and logic. It's your own, special logic!

A person can invent a new thing or music or religion or wharever decades or centuries before it is reinvented by others, even though the first inventor does not know or use the invention's name of the later time (sorry for my English). We talk about the thing not about it's name!!!

It's easy to understand: Beethoven invented Jazz but did not give that new music the name Jazz which was an American name of later generations. You can't deny LvB this his genial invention.

Long time long talk. Just to repeat I don't think there's much disagreement between me and krosero, but it's about whether the pro/amateur split is the biggest factor in Laver's seemingly late dominance in 1969. I think it is while krosero doesn't. In Tilden's case it's probably his time away from the game, which we saw manifest itself as recently as this past decade in Agassi.

Okay. Just wondering. You both are very rational posters and I was curious what the disagreement was about but apparently there was none.

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

Sorry for double posting this.

NonP, Your statement that it's thus the more reason Beethoven did not invent Jazz because that name was not known in Beethoven's time, is beyond my understanding and logic. It's your own, special logic!

A person can invent a new thing or music or religion or whatever decades or centuries before it is reinvented by others, even though the first inventor does not know or use the invention's name of the later time (sorry for my English). We talk about the thing itself not about it's name!!!

It's easy: Beethoven invented Jazz but did not give that new music the name Jazz which was an American name of later generations. You can't deny LvB this his genial invention.

NonP, Your statement that it's thus the more reason Beethoven did not invent Jazz because that name was not known in Beethoven's time, is beyond my understanding and logic. It's your own, special logic!

A person can invent a new thing or music or religion or wharever decades or centuries before it is reinvented by others, even though the first inventor does not know or use the invention's name of the later time (sorry for my English). We talk about the thing not about it's name!!!

It's easy to understand: Beethoven invented Jazz but did not give that new music the name Jazz which was an American name of later generations. You can't deny LvB this his genial invention.

I was not talking just about the name. For the umpteenth time, an invention is more than its parts. You're still confusing jazziness with jazz.

NonP, You are a little liar: You yet answered: "Thus the more it's reason that Beethoven did not "invent" Jazz" as a reply to my words that Stravinsky did not called it Boogie-Woogie because that term was not known in Beethoven's time. Please stay honest!

Why should I change my mind about Betthoven#s invention. I'm old enough and have heard enough classic and Jazz mucic to be able to differ between "jazziness" and "jazz"...

NonP, You are a little liar: You yet answered: "Thus the more it's reason that Beethoven did not "invent" Jazz" as a reply to my words that Stravinsky did not called it Boogie-Woogie because that term was not known in Beethoven's time. Please stay honest!

You would be on better grounds to call me a "liar" if that's the only thing I said about this whole question of invention. I didn't. Calm down and read more carefully.

Quote:

Why should I change my mind about Betthoven#s invention. I'm old enough and have heard enough classic and Jazz mucic to be able to differ between "jazziness" and "jazz"...

Look, you're the same one who thinks Haydn is the Roy Emerson of "classic" "mucic," so excuse me for not thinking so highly of your self-proclaimed expertise. And I never even said you should change your mind, as you're wont to do regarding your idol Rosewall all the time.

You would be on better grounds to call me a "liar" if that's the only thing I said about this whole question of invention. I didn't. Calm down and read more carefully.

Look, you're the same one who thinks Haydn is the Roy Emerson of "classic" "mucic," so excuse me for not thinking so highly of your self-proclaimed expertise. And I never even said you should change your mind, as you're wont to do regarding your idol Rosewall all the time.

NonP, I'm sorry for "liar" but I have clearly shown that you have changed your mind within of a few minutes (I have quoted your words). I use to read the words of posters very carefully...

Your high opinion of unfeeling Haydn shows me that you have not been impressed by classic music that much. You probably have not "understood" Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert...

The next changing of your mind: You yet have insinuated I should change my opinion. Every reader can read your words clearly.

You have not understood my admiration for Rosewall. I never admired Muscles alone. I also admire Laver, Gonzalez,Roche, Tilden, Vines, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Gimeno and others. I specially admire those who are underrated by the fans and experts.

Nadal may belong already but I prefer to err on the side of caution. Not sure about Novak Djokovic yet in the top ten. His peak is one of the best but again I prefer to wait.

Rafa should be in there if we're going to include anyone other than the Magnificent Seven (Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras & Federer).

Nole I agree is not there yet. I frankly must say, as a fan, that his peak tends to be overrated these days. I'm fairly confident that Pete & Fed had a higher gear than Novak, and that if they were to play each other in that fantasy matchup series Nole would have a losing record, however slight the margin might be. And trust me, I was one of his biggest supporters long before most of us had even heard of him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NonP, I'm sorry for "liar" but I have clearly shown that you have changed your mind within of a few minutes (I have quoted your words). I use to read the words of posters very carefully...

I haven't changed my tune a bit. I clearly made an additional point or two after the comment you referred to.

Quote:

Your high opinion of unfeeling Haydn shows me that you have not been impressed by classic music that much. You probably have not "understood" Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert...

Actually Hadyn is not one of my favorites, and Bach is hands down the GOAT in my book, with Mozart and Beethoven right behind (though I find much of Wolfgang's oeuvre too polite and innocuous). Schubert is somewhere in the top 10 but not in the same exalted group. Still I'd never say a composer's of Haydn's importance and invention was some kind of a second-rate mug. Same thing with Wagner whose music often bores me to tears.

Quote:

The next changing of your mind: You yet have insinuated I should change my opinion. Every reader can read your words clearly.

When you try to persuade the implicit purpose is to change the audience's opinion. When it became clear that you would not change yours I simply suggested that we agree to disagree. There was nothing muddled about my position.

Quote:

You have not understood my admiration for Rosewall. I never admired Muscles alone. I also admire Laver, Gonzalez,Roche, Tilden, Vines, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Gimeno and others. I specially admire those who are underrated by the fans and experts.

That's not what I was talking about. Anyway it's best not to get into it here, as this "discussion" has taken on a life of its own where it shouldn't have.